Bitter partisanship has always been commonplace
in American politics. It is, nonetheless, notable that there are no
signs today of across the aisle collaboration or civility, not to
mention friendship, between national political leaders. President
Obama once remarked that he liked House Speaker John Boehner, but the
facial expressions and body language when the two men meet suggest
something well short of mutual warmth. The camaraderie between
President Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill apparently has no parallel
in today’s Washington.

In the early 1960s, President Kennedy worked
amicably and productively with GOP Senate Minority Leader Everett
Dirksen and his reluctance to campaign for Dirksen’s reelection
opponent in 1962 angered Democratic leaders in Illinois. House
Minority Leader Charles Halleck was a different story. A
self-described “100 percent Republican … gut fighter,” Halleck
had been an intense partisan since the 1930s. A committed
isolationist, he had voted against Lend Lease and the Draft, and
quickly acquired a reputation for party loyalty and tough infighting.
Halleck emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of JFK,
especially on Cuba.

On October 22, 1962, Halleck and other
congressional leaders were summoned to Washington from all across the
country; some were flown to the Capital in military aircraft since
Congress was not in session. The leaders met with the president just
hours before he was to address the nation, and were stunned to learn
that Soviet nuclear missiles had been photographed in Cuba. Halleck
offered his support before the meeting began, but also told the
president that he wanted the record to be clear—he had been
informed—but not consulted. The meeting turned out to be extremely
tense and confrontational. But, all the flak came from Democrats—most
notably Richard Russell, chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, and J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.

Senator Dirksen, on the other hand, was
consistently supportive and Halleck openly questioned Senator
Russell’s demands for an immediate invasion of Cuba, claiming that
the congressional leadership had recently been told that “it would
take us three months to take Cuba. Am I right about that?” “I
don’t recall that,” Russell muttered irritably in response. When
defense secretary Robert McNamara explained that an invasion of Cuba
would require at least 2,000 bombing sorties, Halleck probed further,
“Bombing sorties with what kind of bombs?” McNamara, strikingly,
left the nuclear option open: “Initially, iron bombs.”

Halleck also pressed the president for
clarification on the most essential point: “are we absolutely
positive from these photos” that the Soviet buildup had now become
offensive? “Yes,” JFK answered. “We’re sure of that?”
Halleck reiterated. “That’s correct,” the president replied
firmly. McNamara then assured Halleck, “you might question the
missiles, but you can’t question the IL-28s.” Halleck responded
bluntly, “What are they? What’s an IL-28?” Jet bombers, the
defense secretary explained, “capable of carrying a 4,000-pound
bomb load. … These without any doubt whatsoever are offensive
weapons.”

Returning to his office after the White House
meeting, the unsettled but politically savvy minority leader told an
aide: “You remember my prediction a month ago? I said he’ll pull
the rug out from under the Republicans on the Cuba issue” before
the congressional elections. “Well, that’s what he’s done.”

However, there is a remarkable footnote to this
episode, captured in the final moments of the once-classified tape
recording of the meeting. As the participants were leaving the
Cabinet room, Halleck approached President Kennedy alone and
said: “Mr. President … I didn’t know what I
was called in for. Happy to come. I’m glad you asked me. I don’t
have the background to make these decisions. You do. And I’ve been
glad to speak a piece or two here, but, whatever you decide to do….”
“Well I appreciate that,” the president replied gratefully. “I
guess,” Halleck concluded pensively, “that’s it.”

Unaware that the discussion had been recorded
and clearly affected by the terrible choices facing the president,
Charlie Halleck’s human empathy, at least briefly, trumped partisan
politics. One has to wonder if any comparable private moments are
occurring in today’s Washington.